Mary Toft hoax

Mary Toft, the Rabbit Woman of Godalming [Guildford, Godliman],
was a 25-year-old servant girl when she convinced several physicians,
including the King of England’s surgeon, that she had given birth to
rabbits. She craved a bit of fame and fortune, which she achieved, but her
harebrained scheme was also rewarded with a short stay in prison awaiting
prosecution for being "a vile Cheat and Impostor."*

Mary Toft's hoax happened in 1726, during the reign of
King George I. Mrs. Toft had inserted the parts of several rabbits where no
rabbit parts should ever be and summoned the local surgeon, John Howard. She
feigned delivery and the astonished Howard was convinced he'd participated
in a medical oddity worthy of widespread notification.

Eventually, King George sent his surgeon, Nathanael
St. Andre, and Samuel Molyneux, an astronomer and secretary to the Prince of
Wales, to investigate. In their interview with Mrs. Toft, she told them that
before her misadventure with rabbit births she had had a strong craving for
rabbit meat, she often dreamed of rabbits, and spent much time trying to
catch them in the garden. She then repeated her variation on the
rabbits-out-of-the-hat trick. St. Andre and Molyneux were so
convinced of the worthiness of her effort that they did a scientific
examination of one of the rabbit parts. A rabbit lung floated when placed in
water. Thus, they concluded - though it is not clear why - that Mary was not
tricking them.

William Hogarth, 'Cunicularii,
or the Wise Men of Godliman in Consultation', 1726. (MaryToft giving
birth to rabbits. Courtesy of
OldBaily.org)

Mary Toft's hoax didn't require much technique but it
did require a bit of ingenuity. And, she must have been a pretty fair
actress to have carried off her hoax. She kept up the lie even after she was
brought to London, where large numbers of curiosity seekers camped outside
her lodgings. Eventually, she confessed to her rabbit abuse and was
imprisoned. The
British Gazetteer reported on December 24, 1726:

A Prosecution is ordered to be carried on in the Court
of King’s Bench, next Hillary Term, against Mary Toft of Godalmin, for an
infamous Cheat and Imposture, in pretending to have brought forth 17 præter-natural
Rabbits. She is still detained a Prisoner in Bridewell, where none but the
Keeper’s Wife is permitted to go into the Room to deliver any thing to her;
the infinite Crowds of People that resort to see her, not being suffered to
approach her too near, and more especially her Husband, who is strictly
search’d when he comes to the Prison.

However, after about four months in Bridewell, she was
released without being prosecuted, a fact that brought joy to the heart of
one of those who had believed in the rabbit births. This anonymous fellow
wrote in The
Craftsman in April 1727 that he was confident that Mary Toft's story
was true because the authorities would not have released her "if there had
been any reasonable Grounds to form a Prosecution against Her."

Except for the truly gullible such as Toft's defender
in The Craftsman, how could anyone fall for such a hoax? Were the wise
men of 18th century England especially stupid or ignorant? Didn't people in
those days know that humans can only give birth to humans?

One explanation is that the notion of a human giving
birth to rabbits fit well with another belief held by many eminent men of the day. The medical establishment of 18th century England
was willing to believe in the possibility of a human giving birth to rabbits
because it was consistent with the notion of maternal
impressions: that a pregnant woman’s experiences are
directly imprinted on her unborn child. The theory was used to explain birth
defects. For example, a child born deaf was due to the mother having been
shocked by a loud sound during pregnancy or a child born blind might be due
to the mother having looked at a blind person during pregnancy. Thus, Toft's tale about her
desires, dreams, and garden exploits fit well with the maternal impressions
belief and lent plausibility to her rather strange attempt at recognition.

Another curious fact associated with pregnancy is the
apparent influence of the emotions of the mother on the child in utero.
Everyone knows of the popular explanation of many birthmarks, their supposed
resemblance to some animal or object seen by the mother during pregnancy,
etc. The truth of maternal impressions, however, seems to be more firmly
established by facts of a substantial nature. There is a natural desire to
explain any abnormality or anomaly of the child as due to some incident
during the period of the mother's pregnancy, and the truth is often
distorted and the imagination heavily drawn upon to furnish the satisfactory
explanation. It is the customary speech of the dime-museum lecturer to
attribute the existence of some "freak" to an episode in the mother's
pregnancy. The poor "Elephant-man" [Joseph
Carey Merrick (1862-1890)] firmly believed his peculiarity was due to
the fact that his mother while carrying him in utero was knocked down at the
circus by an elephant. In some countries the exhibition of monstrosities is
forbidden because of the supposed danger of maternal impression. The
celebrated "Siamese Twins" for this reason were forbidden to exhibit
themselves for quite a period in France'.*

Modern genetics should have put an end to belief in
maternal impressions and other superstitions of ancient
teratology, but Dr. Stevenson's work shows that where there is a
will, there is a way to find supportive evidence for any hypothesis, no
matter what the totality of the evidence might be.

Not everybody in 18th century England was as gullible
as Nathanael
St. Andre, Samuel Molyneux, and Mary Toft's anonymous defender quoted above.
Some, like the artist William Hogarth (1697-1764), obviously took great
pleasure in mocking the "credulity,
superstition, and fanaticism" of his time. One can only wonder what
Hogarth would make of today's fascination with psychics who hear clipped
sounds from heaven or whose visions direct them to solve crimes for Court
TV.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and
Gynaecologists lists the following 18th century publications relating to
Mary Toft:

The several depositions of Edward Costen, Richard
Stedman, John Sweetapple, Mary Peytoe, Elizabeth Mason, and Mary Costen;
relating to the affair of Mary Toft, of Godalming in the county of Surrey,
being deliver'd of several rabbits, [etc.] 8vo. London: Pemberton, 1727.

AHLERS (C.). Some observations concerning the woman of
Godlyman, 1726.

BRATHWAITE (T.). Remarks on A short narrative of an
extra- ordinary delivery of rabbits, 1726.